4 8 



CHARLES WATER TON AS A NATURALIST. 



Charles Waterton, however, seems 

 to have been a distinguished man in 

 his way, that is, as a taxidermist or 

 setter-up of animals, and ornitholo- 

 gist, or in anything of that nature that 

 he actually saw and described ; but 

 very unreliable in questions of philo- 

 sophical inquiry, or that required 

 judgment, in matters relating to nat- 

 ural history. In short, he seems to 

 have been " all sight and no scent," 

 with a blessed ignorance of where the 

 one ends and the other begins. His 

 writings generally are poorly put to- 

 gether, and sometimes sadly mixed 

 with extraneous matter, showing the 

 want of a well-trained and scientific 

 mind; notwithstanding which, his 

 works and life, marred as they are 

 by personalities, however much pro- 

 voked, and especially his establish- 

 ment at Walton Hall, will ensure his 

 being well remembered by the lovers 

 of natural history everywhere. He 

 says : " Most men have some fa- 

 vourite pursuit, some well-trained 

 hobby, which they have ridden from 

 the days of their youth. Mine is orni- 

 thology, and when the vexations of 

 the world have broken in upon me, 

 I mount it and go away for an hour 

 or two amongst the birds of the 

 valley ; and I seldom fail to return 

 with better feelings than when I first 

 set out" (p. 496). This, and what 

 relates to it, and matters connected 

 with natural history in general, seem 

 to have made up his character, for 

 nothing can be drawn from his writ- 

 ings to indicate that anything else of 

 any importance, beyond his religion, 

 attracted him, except some of the 

 Latin poets, whom he quoted to il- 

 lustrate his subjects and ideas. Per- 

 haps the influence of the Jesuits is 

 here observable, for the end of their 

 teaching is to stunt or emasculate 

 the mind in its higher faculties, and 

 hold it in subjection, limiting its 

 functions in that respect to one idea, 

 viz : THE CHURCH,* beyond whose 



* Waterton, in his Wanderings, com- 

 plains of Southey, in his History of Brazil, 

 when referring to the Jesuits, making use 



teachings all is dangerous and impi- 

 ous speculation. 



His editor is anything but free 

 from the bad taste of calling names 

 and indulging in improper language. 

 He should have apologised for Wa- 

 terton in that respect, rather than 

 imitated him, after the time that had 

 elapsed. He says : " In fact, Water- 

 ton flogged two generations of 

 quacks, and it would be well if a 

 second Waterton arose with a new 

 rod and a larger " (p. 130) ; never im- 

 agining, when penning these words, 

 that he might have been putting one 

 in pickle, to be laid over the back 

 of himself as well as his friend. He 

 seems to have damned him not with 

 faint, but with fulsome praise, calcu- 

 lated to make him enemies rather 

 than friends. He has no right to 

 characterize him as a man of " acute 

 intellect," or a " profound natural- 

 ist," or that all " his observations are 

 so accurate that they delight the 

 profoundest philosopher," for the 

 very opposite can be said of many 

 of them. Waterton says : " I cannot 

 understand how he can make me, at 

 one and the same time, a very ob- 

 serving and an unscientific naturalist " 



of the phrase, "Whose zeal the most fa- 

 natical was directed by the coolest policy," 

 and adds: "It will puzzle many a clear 

 brain to comprehend how it is possible in 

 the nature of things, that zeal the most 

 fanatical, should be directed by the coolest 

 policy" If Waterton was sincere in what 

 he said, it would follow that he would 

 have been plucked had he tried to take 

 the degree of " First Wriggler " in the 

 Order. 



He mentions with great gusto, how he 

 got the better, in a Jesuitical way, of the 

 prefect at Stonyhurst, who had hunted 

 him for nearly half an hour in grounds 

 forbidden to the boys, and "cornered" 

 him. As a last resource, he got the old 

 brewer to cover him with pigs' litter, just 

 as the official bounced in by the gate 

 through which he had entered. " Have 

 you seen Charles Waterton ?" said he, quite 

 out of breath. And his " trusty guardian 

 answered, in a tone of voice which would 

 have deceived anybody, ' Sir, I have not 

 spoken a word to Charles Waterton theso 

 three days, to the best of my knowledge ' " 

 (Warne t p. 19). 



